The case began in the small city of Sanford as a routine homicide but soon evolved into a civil rights cause examining racial profiling and its consequences…

…said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P. “…we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed.”

Problem: The Zimmerman case has virtually nothing to do with racial profiling.

Zimmerman wasn’t police; nothing he did was official.

Zimmerman didn’t profile: he described Martin’s race (as “black”) just because a police dispatcher directly asked him to. Finally,

If anyone profiled, it may have been Trayvon Martin, who allegedly profiled the Hispanic, neighborhood-patrolling Zimmerman as a white threat (a “creepy-ass cracker”).

Next, about Zimmerman’s race. I think race is a thoroughly stupid way to classify human beings. But, I don’t rule the world. As many know, Zimmerman’s mother is Peruvian and “Spanish was the primary language at home”. Per the same article, the family itself wanted to downplay all racial angles when all of this broke, but… clearly, they didn’t get their way. So, why does the Establishment media never simply describe Zimmerman as Hispanic?

Zimmerman is as Hispanic as President Obama is African-American (namely half, including parentage, cultural heritage/exposure, and choice of identity). Yet CNN and The New York Times weirdly call him “white Hispanic” (no hyphen), while others have used the bizarre – and possibly insulting – circumlocution “Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic”. Imagine if they called Obama “white Black”, or said “Obama identifies himself as African-American”. They never would, no matter how much Joe Biden wants them to.

Exit curiosity: If Zimmerman’s parents’ races were switched – so that he were almost the same person he is, in genetics and appearance, but happened to have a Peruvian last name – Would he have still been put on trial? Was anti-German bias at work?

It’s difficult to say more until the claims pan out, but I’ll ask this: Obama chose to reinforce, rather than to correct, a painfully one-sided view of the Zimmerman-Martin case. Has his doing so already led to (more) tragedy? Also linked from the comments: numerous threats on the Zimmerman jurors.

UPDATE: I didn’t know about “watermelon lean”. After a commentor mentioned it a couple times, I googled around and stumbled across this year-old post at American Thinker, “What the Media Choose Not to Know about Trayvon”. It’s fascinating. It shows Martin as part of “urban America’s lost boy culture”, a culture which commits crime in disproportion to its numbers, and which the GayPatriot blog has perhaps touched on, indirectly before.

ace, I agree. It’s very unsatisfying (to a liberal) to be concerned about any form of violence that doesn’t allow you to wag your finger and flaunt your soi-disant moral superiority on matters racial.

The fact that the vast majority of violence against young black men is committed by other black men is very awkward and inconvenient to them. Denouncing it might result in an uncomfortable conversation about the social norms that breed such violence; and that is a conversation liberals don’t want to have.

Well, V and acethepug, you also have to remember that the Obama Party doesn’t really like minorities; they just happen to see them as strong backs to pick and haul the cotton, or in this case, vote.

So they herd them into slave cottages, aka Section 8 housing that they zone well away from their plantation houses, make sure their schools avoid all performance metrics and teach hymns and obedience to Barack Obama and white liberals instead of math and science, give them Obamaphones and EBT cards and welfare checks, and every two or so years send a van to haul them to multiple polling places.

Jobs, education, income growth, self-reliance? All of those things might make them uppity and question the authority of their white liberal betters, so no.

Why is the left making a hero out of a 17 year old thug who was kicked out of school for possessing burglary tools and stolen jewelry, and for punching a bus driver in the face?

Questioning the hero worship the media has created I completely get. Not that I expect anything better out of our media. But this business of referring to him as a thug bugs me. I understand that what we know about Trayvon now tells us he was probably an obnoxious ass. He was a 17 year old, and his behavior we know about seems rather immature.

Was he a “thug”? Maybe. Even if he was, it’s immaterial – Zimmerman knew none of it when he followed him. He didn’t know anything about that kid except what he could see. I don’t believe he made a judgment based on race; rather he most likely made it based on what he knew about crime in the neighborhood. I think he just made a bad decision to follow a kid in the dark and create a situation that had the potential to turn dangerous and then did, resulting in one of them dead.

All that said, we really do need that conversation about crime within the black community. But you’re right, VtK, that’s a conversation on social norms too many people are unwilling to have. Until we have it, things won’t improve.

Neptune….agree on the need for a “conversation”, but I don’t think in today’s world it would be very productive. Remember when AG Holder called us all “cowards” for not discussing racial issues? Productive conversations don’t begin with name calling. I believe the progs would dictate the terms of the “conversation” to such an extent as to be useless except to further denigrate those who don’t agree.

BTW, remember how the MFM refused to cover the Gosnell trial because “It’s just a local crime story.” How was the Zimmerman trial different. (I think we know the answer, Zimmerman was potentially helpful to the leftist narrative, Gosnell was not.)

Neptune – Martin’s behavior is relevant for these reasons.
1) It means that Zimmerman guessed right. Based on Martin’s erratic behavior – ambling back and forth in the rain, like he might be on drugs, according to Zimmerman – he guessed that Martin could be up to no good, and phoned it into the police non-emergency line. (If Zimmerman profiled, it was on actions or body language.)
2) Martin’s recent “fighting” behavior especially means that Martin plausibly could have started the fight or jumped Zimmerman, which was the latter’s whole defense (that Martin had).

Also, another way in which Trayvon Martin’s past behavior was relevant. Suppose instead of skating on all the past behavior, suppose someone, somewhere… a father perhaps… had held him accountable for it? Maybe he wouldn’t have been out that night buying the components of ‘Watermelon Lean,’ and maybe he would have had enough sense to go home instead of jumping on the guy that he thought was following him.

Having lived in the ghettos of Watts California, 66th Ave of Oakland California, Hayes Valley in San Francisco and Sulphur Springs Florida I have been acquainted with survival for the last 40 years. In all of those cities, the response time for a 911 call was an hour plus. In Oakland and San Francisco the call usually ended up with a recording to leave a message. If you are going to survive you are going to learn how to become close friends with neighbors on all side (except in Sacramento where I was surrounded on 3 sides with gang houses). You are going to have a dog. You are going to have at least one firearm and know how to use it and what the law is in that state. I have lived in black ghettos, Hispanic ghettos and one seldom mentioned: redneck ghettos. It is not a race based fear: it is a fear of criminals living around you, or threateneing you or your area with burglaries, assault, murder (my mother was murdered in Oakland in 1970) I have been robbed at gun point 3 times in my life. I have learned you have to keep your eyes open to anyone behaving suspicious. It was a crime for the prosecutors in the Zimmerman case to deliberately hide the so called victim’s behavior and background. The liberal press, the liberal media in general was perpetrators of this farce including our Governor Scott whom I supported in the last election. Jesse Jackson and the “usual suspects” all playing the race card to make themselves relevant to the on going situation. These bigoted carpet baggers have set race relations back 100 years. Fanning the flames keeps them alive politically and financially. We have 38 states that have the right idea of “right to carry” laws. Gays in particular need to quit thinking with their dicks and realize the politically correct ones do not speak for the rest of us. As I wrote in my song “This Queer Don’t Run”.

Regarding your “exit curiosity”: If Zimmerman’s parents’ races were switched – so that he were almost the same person he is, in genetics and appearance, but happened to have a Peruvian last name – Would he have still been put on trial? Was anti-German bias at work?

I’ve said the same thing a few times in the last few days. Had he had a recognizable Hispanic last name, the media wouldn’t have been able to come up with the new label “White Hispanic.”

Likewise, I imagine, had Barack Obama been named Barry Dunham, he’d never have attracted as much attention in life.

I was being a little bit cute about the anti-German bias. I do think there’s a bit of that around (and I’m guilty of it, sometimes). But clearly, race hucksterism is a greater factor here: Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, etc. wanting to mythologize the black guy who was killed by someone pale-ish with a German-sounding (or Jewish-sounding?) name.

Gene…Neptune is correct with one exception. There are 12 jurors in capital murder cases if the prosecution is going for the death penalty. In such a case, the defendant can opt for 12 over 6. This resulted from a USSC case in 1970…Williams vs Florida.

According to this, the jury consisted of 5 white women and one Hispanic woman.

According to this, one is going to write a book to show “why the jurors had no option but to find Zimmerman not guilty due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the jury instructions.”

V the K wrote: I think Rush’s observation that the reaction to the Zimmerman verdict is basically spoiled liberal children throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get what they wanted is pretty on the nose.

That sounds right to me, too, V the K. We would have been seeing and hearing the same sorts of things from them had Romney won the election last November.

Race in this country is the scab we cannot resist picking at. I suspect my comments now and then reveal me to be a bit of a pessimist. But never have I been so pessimistic as I am now.

John Derbyshire points out in his last podcast that what we’re seeing is not “pro-minority”, it’s “anti-white”. As coarse as that sounds, it makes sense. There is no other logical explanation for years of policy responsible for so much misery among those it’s “intended” to help simply to stick it to whitey.

A news item the other day about the Congressional Black Caucus meeting with BHO the other day and the CBC’s hopes for immigration reform are but the latest example. I mean, given the levels of unemployment among blacks, what group of people would millions more lower-skill workers hurt the worst? But no problemo to the left – kicking the ladder to self-betterment out from under those who need it most. It provides more Dem voters and increases the resentment and desperation of people who have been meticulously trained over decades to blame the white folk.

My pessimism, though, stems from the white folk’s compulsion to abase themselves so completely. Watching the white folks shriek and wail over a routine criminal proceeding simply to parade their PC bonafides borders on pathological. Coupled with the feigned ignorance of the brutality that’s become the norm in places like Chicago, we have asininity.

Watching the leaders we so willingly elect act – what’s the phrase? Oh, yes – act stupidly knowing full well that they’re inciting an escalation in the race intifada borders on treasonous.

I saw a little while ago Eric “my people” Holder stating that DOJ would pursue this because we “can’t miss the chance”. What? Miss the chance to railroad someone because of their color? To demonstrate to the citizenry subjects that their leaders can crush them if the urge strikes them?

Zimmerman was dumb to follow Martin but that was not a criminal act. Martin was dumb to ambush Zimmerman (which was a criminal act). But the facts don’t matter here. What matters is that naked cowardice and an utter lack of honor or allegiance to the Constitution – all to slake the mob.

” Problem: The Zimmerman case has virtually nothing to do with racial profiling.”

I could not agree more. What this does show is the need to reform gun laws. First Zimmermans violent past should preclude him from owning a hand gun

2nd any law that allows you to shoot an unarmed teen -or person – after picking a fight needs to be changed.

[Jeff adds: mike, your level of 'denial' continues to amaze me. The evidence presented in court did not lend itself to the interpretation that Zimmerman had challenged Martin to a fistfight; and did lend itself to the interpretation that Martin had Zimmerman on the concrete, punching him "MMA style" and slamming his head into the concrete. At least the jury, who almost certainly studied the matter in greater depth than you, seem to have thought so.]

Actually, you don’t agree, mike. You are just here to lie and race-bait and use this to push your anti-conservative, anti-white, anti-gun agenda.

What this does show is the need to reform gun laws. First Zimmermans violent past should preclude him from owning a hand gun

No. Your Barack Obama Party and your Barack Obama admitted that you refuse to enforce existing laws on background checks and prosecute those who lie on them.

Furthermore, mike, you WILL enforce the law immediately against your Obama base in Chicago. You WILL immediately search the houses of and immediately confiscate handguns found with anyone who has any conviction whatsoever on their record.

Do you want to play this game now, mikey? Go ahead. Say yes. You’d better say yes, because if you don’t, your racist hypocrisy is now blatantly obvious.

Why do you oppose enforcing existing gun laws, mike? Why do you allow black men with violent convictions to possess handguns without arresting them and prosecuting them? Why, mike?

2nd any law that allows you to shoot an unarmed teen -or person – after picking a fight needs to be changed.

Comment by mike — July 15, 2013 @ 6:15 pm – July 15, 2013

Wrong, mike.

“Picking a fight” would have moved this into second-degree murder or, at minimum, manslaughter.

Of which the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.

The jury reviewed and was provided all the evidence, mike. It is YOU who cannot deal with facts, who refuses to accept evidence to the contrary, and is screaming that Zimmerman should be deprived of his rights of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a fair trial by a jury of his peers, and due process because you don’t like the result.

You are insane at this point, mike. You are completely irrational. Do you realize that you are sitting here screaming that your views trump those of the informed jury to which all evidence was shown? Do you realize that you are sitting here screaming that the court and the jury are both wrong because they did not reach the same conclusion you did? Do you realize that you are claiming yourself to be more informed than the jury when you haven’t a fraction of the evidence and testimony they were provided?

You want the established law and process of this country to be overturned so you can punish those you hate. You are making it clear to us that “progressives” like you and your fellow Obama supporters will not accept the rule of law, will not accept due process, will not accept evidence, will not accept the results of a jury, will not accept anything that in any way disagrees with what your screaming race-baiting bigot Obama wants to push.

These are the things that civilize our society, mike, and you and your Barack Obama are screaming and pissing on them and demanding they be suspended so you get your way.

You want to suspend the rule of law, mikey? Let’s have right at it. The Second Amendment exists because our forefathers knew that there were petty, malicious, vicious creatures like you and your Obama who would abuse governmental power and governmental positions for your own benefit. In fact, they had just overthrown a king who behaved exactly like your Obama, screaming that he was above the law, screaming that juries should be ignored, screaming that he should always get what he wants, and setting loose his repulsive, shrieking minions like you to terrorize anyone who stood up to him.

Ditto what Conan Dunham said. What concerns me about the case is that there is a significant number of people who believe you have no right to defend yourself with a gun if you are attacked by a minority. Holy crow, everyone I know has some claim to minority status. Martin’s problem wasn’t that he was black, it was that no one had ever introduced him to the concept of his own mortality. That’s a common frailty among seventeen year olds. I’m sad that he was too ignorant to know that some of us are carrying, even if you can’t see it, but I’m glad that maybe a few young guns will think it through before they pick a fight. I saw a comment where a guy said that now he would tell his kids not to roam the neighborhood at night like that’s some kind of tragedy. Guess what kids? Don’t roam the freakin’ neighborhood at night. The kids who got here before you caused trouble and now it’s not safe. Get over it.

Remember a couple of weeks ago when lower-case-concern-troll was shaking his little fist and demanding… demanding… absolute, incontrovertible proof that his beloved President Mugabe (Obama) supported the Muslim Brotherhood. And no matter how much evidence was presented he insisted that standard of infallible proof had not been met.

So, since lower-case-concern-troll has such insistence on a high-standard of proof when one makes assertion of fact, it is fair to ask where his absolute proof that George Zimmerman initiated the fight with Trayvon Martin.

We’ll never know for certain who initiated the fight, Zimmerman or Martin. Having said that, these facts bear repeating (and may be new to mike?):

1) Martin was known to his family, friends and associates as a strong fighter. His older(!) brother messaged him to the effect, when are you going to teach me to fight?
2) Zimmerman was known to his family, friends and associates as overweight, out-of-shape, physically timid.
3) Zimmerman passed repeated polygraphs (lie detectors) and challenge interviews, on his account of events. In one challenge interview, a police detective tried to rattle Zimmerman by saying they had found a recording of the whole thing. Zimmerman was reportedly elated, not rattled. Elation is the normal reaction when the suspect truly believes that he is telling the truth, and thus, expects a recording to exonerate him.
(4) Zimmerman was the one who had bruises and contusions, like someone had been hitting him.

On those items, the possibility that Martin initiated the fight is still unproven, but must be considered, as it is entirely plausible.

ILC – you forgot the following:
1 – Zimmerman was following Martin – left his car
2 – Martin would be still be alive if Zimmerman did not do this
3 – Somehow Zimmerman got into a confrontation with Martin
From the detive report:

“The report goes on to say that the tragedy was avoidable by Zimmerman, who had “reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin’s purpose for being in the neighborhood.”

Further Zimmerman changed his story a few times:
Some facts of the night remain unclear. A synopsis written by the lead police investigator, Christopher Serino, said Trayvon was walking in the direction of the house where he was staying with his father when Zimmerman followed him.

Serino said in his report that in one of Zimmerman’s statements to police, he said he got out of his car so he could see where Trayvon was going and give that information to the dispatcher.

The report says that when the dispatcher asked him if he was following Trayvon, Zimmerman said, “Yes.”

But he gave a different answer in his first recorded statement, he said he told the dispatcher, “I don’t know. I don’t know where he went.”

In subsequent interviews, including a written statement to police that night and a walk through the scene of the shooting with police the next day, Zimmerman told police he only got out of his car to look for the name of the street.

The detective wrote that Zimmerman said he avoided speaking to Trayvon because he was afraid of him. But “later in the encounter,” Serino wrote, “Zimmerman exited his vehicle, in spite of his earlier admission to investigators that he was afraid of Martin. … His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject.”

“He may have convinced himself that he was in fear of his life, but whether or not he was is not definitive,” Grenier said.

Zimmerman’s responses would be more meaningful, he said, if he had been asked, ” ‘Did Trayvon Martin attack you and knock you to the ground?’ Or ‘Was Trayvon Martin on top of you hitting you before you shot him?’ “

mike – you forgot the following:
1 – Zimmerman was following Martin – left his car – and had every right to do this, as long as he did not threaten Martin at close quarters or initiate a fight.
2 – Martin might NOT still be alive if Zimmerman did not do this – since Martin was apparently prone to fighting and confrontations. (You have absolutely no way of knowing.)
3 – Somehow Martin punched Zimmerman “MMA style” and smashed his head into the concrete. Could those have been voluntary actions, on Martin’s part? Answer: I’m being a tad sarcastic. They were necessarily Martin’s choice, and a wrong choice. Martin would have survived his time with Zimmerman, if Martin had not done those things.

Please note – I’m not saying Zimmerman is perfect, or grand or anything. I’m saying that no one knows (or can prove) who initiated the physical fighting, and that a jury of six women who listened to 3 weeks of intensive testimony on all this and then discussed it together for 16 hours agreed, in essence, that Zimmerman might well not be lying and that Martin’s conduct in the physical fighting put Zimmerman in legitimate fear for his life.

As for the “inconsistencies” you’ve listed – Thank for finally at least trying to have some evidence for what you believe. Having said that: No cigar. They’re minor. For example, I can think of 20 reasons why someone might exit their car despite being afraid of someone out there.

One possible reason (not proven, but possible) is called “courage”, or serving your community (your neighborhood watch) despite your fear. Another is called, “knowing you have a gun.” Golly mike, do you think that *Zimmerman* might have known that Zimmerman had a gun to protect himself if this suspicious person turned out to be dangerous? And I can think of still other reasons.

Sorry what was that? I think it was the sound of conservatives scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments explaining why Zimmerman (who had a history of calling the police some 44 times in the past 8 years on black children as young as 8 years old) concluded that a boy was “suspicious” even though he was doing nothing wrong. Racial profiling has nothing to do with holding an official position, it has to do with false attributions of guilt. What fascinates me the most about these conservative defenders of Zimmerman who are usually apt to say that in any circumstance, such as a child being born into poverty or a woman getting pregnant and not being able to support her baby, it is always up to that person to deal with the “consequences” of their actions. But somehow a grown man chasing a child around who was clearly afraid and trying to avoid him doesn’t instill the same obnoxious campaign slogans about personal responsibility? Even though Zimmerman was the one carrying a deadly weapon and had been told that it was unnecessary for him to approach the person who was fleeing? He gets not responsibility for creating a volatile situation when he was carrying a gun with him?

But of course since this website and its authors are so ethnically diverse, I’m sure someone explained to you that black people have complained for generations about such hostile treatment and presumptions of criminal activity when none was present. I’m sure you’re all very well read on the current inequities in the justice system, and the deleterious effects they have had on the black populace of this country. I’m sure your innumerable black friends tell you all about it. It’s as though racism is only related to slavery, segregation and the word nigger. You say “the n word” when referring to it, but then claim blacks vote as a block because of what Al Sharpton has told them at the annual black hive mind meetings. The conservatives finally acknowledge that the segregation they fought to preserve was wrong, even though they pay no heed to the development of these same segregationist views in the conservative movement following the Civil Rights Movement. Alleviating centuries of white racism in the job market is the REAL racism. After all, we can’t have a white person being denied something so a black person can get it. That’s racist! The people excited that this country finally elected a President who wasn’t a white man are the REAL racists! The boy who who called the unstable man stalking him through the night a “cracker” is the real bigot, not the lunatic who killed him after doggedly chasing him.

The racism in this case is not about Zimmerman’s ethnicity. It’s about why he decided an innocent, unarmed black child was doing something wrong when he really was just walking home after buying some skittles and some tea. It’s about why he was so convinced a threat was posed that he was willing to pursue this boy at night and in the rain, even though he had no real reason to believe that he was doing anything wrong. It’s painfully obvious that there is scant cultural diversity among the commenters and authors on this site. If you guys were interested in race relations in this country, why don’t you ask some someone who isn’t white instead of patronizing black people and brushing off their experiences with condescending bromides and uncomfortable and frequently offensive acknowledgements about the white washed character of your own political party. History has shown that white people do not always have the right of it when it comes to racism.

2 – Martin would be still be alive if Zimmerman did not do this.
This is bad logic. Martin would still be alive if he had just gone home and had not chosen to attack Zimmerman. Martin would also be alive if gravity had temporarily reversed itself. Martin would still be alive if his mother hadn’t thrown him out when he got suspended from school. Martin would still be alive if the empty spaces in the atomic structure in the bullet had matched up with the empty spaces in the atomic structure of Martin (or the gun for that matter). I could go on infinitely…

Initially I thought that Zimmerman might be negligent of manslaughter based on the (flawed) news-reportage before the trail. But the evidentiary and testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman tipped the scales towards self-defense vs. manslaughter in my mind. The standard of proof for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. And I believe that the “moment of self-defense” starts when you reach for your gun…not when you leave your house, or your car.

I just don’t get how political-agitation AGAINST concealed-carry and “SYG”-defenses serves the G/L community against the stalkers and the bashers. If anything, this demonstrates all the more reason that we should be able to arm ourselves against the bashers and thugs.

It’s painfully obvious that there is scant cultural diversity among the commenters and authors on this site. If you guys were interested in race relations in this country, why don’t you ask some someone who isn’t white instead of patronizing black people and brushing off their experiences with condescending bromides and uncomfortable and frequently offensive acknowledgements about the white washed character of your own political party. History has shown that white people do not always have the right of it when it comes to racism.

Comment by Another_Jeremy — July 16, 2013 @ 2:05 am – July 16, 2013

Because, Another_Jeremy, we judge based on character, not on skin color.

And what we see here is you screaming that we are not “diverse”, that we have no “cultural experiences” — none of which you are in any position to judge — based on your PROFILING of what you THINK our racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds are because of what you THINK our skin colors are.

Why?

Because you’re a small-minded brat who is going to scream and fling feces until you get what you want. That’s all leftists and liberals like you can do. You don’t offer any intellect, you don’t offer any facts, you just scream and hoot and rage and whine and throw your temper tantrums, expecting the adults to give in to you. Your screaming “racist” is no different than a teenage Trayvon screaming “cracka”, and it comes from exactly the same place of immaturity, hate, and bigotry.

Do you think us foolish enough to believe you would EVER respect our opinions or beliefs, Another_Jeremy? Do you think us naive enough to believe that a Trayvon wannabe like yourself is ever going to do anything other than to smash our heads into the pavement? Do you expect us to believe that a racist bigot such as yourself is ever going to do anything other than scream and rant and namecall us?

Hence is your power here broken. Once everyone knows you are a malicious liar and bigot, your statements mean nothing. We already know you will say and do anything to get your way. You have no credibility, you have no standing, you have nothing but the wreckage you have created with your insane and racist blathering.

Zimmerman started it. Then when he wrote a check his butt couldn’t cash he shot an unarmed teen.

That’s murder. Even if the teen was a third degree blackbelt & 5 time convicted felon.

Comment by mike — July 16, 2013 @ 12:34 am – July 16, 2013

Wrong, mike.

“Picking a fight” would have moved this into second-degree murder or, at minimum, manslaughter.

Of which the jury found Zimmerman not guilty.

The jury reviewed and was provided all the evidence, mike. It is YOU who cannot deal with facts, who refuses to accept evidence to the contrary, and is screaming that Zimmerman should be deprived of his rights of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a fair trial by a jury of his peers, and due process because you don’t like the result.

You are insane at this point, mike. You are completely irrational. Do you realize that you are sitting here screaming that your views trump those of the informed jury to which all evidence was shown? Do you realize that you are sitting here screaming that the court and the jury are both wrong because they did not reach the same conclusion you did? Do you realize that you are claiming yourself to be more informed than the jury when you haven’t a fraction of the evidence and testimony they were provided?

You want the established law and process of this country to be overturned so you can punish those you hate. You are making it clear to us that “progressives” like you and your fellow Obama supporters will not accept the rule of law, will not accept due process, will not accept evidence, will not accept the results of a jury, will not accept anything that in any way disagrees with what your screaming race-baiting bigot Obama wants to push.

Who cares if Martin is an accomplished fighter? Why would that matter?

I already explained why, mike. You didn’t want to hear it. Which means: You aren’t listening, and there’s no point in my trying to converse with you. I’ll address the remainder of my comments to others.

Zimmerman started it.

Folks, that right there is the insanity, the moral perversity, of the viewpoint that would call for us to “honor” Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman wanted to protect his community. Maybe his technique or judgment weren’t perfect, but that is the role he set out to play. That is what “he started”, so to speak. And so he kept an eye on an individual who was indeed up to no good. How can we be certain that individual was up to no good? Because, in reality, things ended up with that very individual attempting to smash Zimmerman’s head into the concrete.

Since I wasn’t there, I can’t be 100% certain that it was Martin who physically attacked Zimmerman first; that Zimmerman didn’t attack Martin first. But the weight of the evidence leans toward Martin having attacked Zimmerman. How do I know? First and foremost, by using my own mind to sift the evidence. Second, because the evidence says that Zimmerman -did not- land blows on Martin nor attempt to smash his head into the pavement. Third, because six women sifted the evidence for weeks in more depth and detail than any of us, and concluded that they could not honestly convict Zimmerman of any wrongdoing.

The Left hates all that – because it violates the Left’s power. The Left doesn’t hate it that a black young man got killed; black young men get killed all the time and the Left is OK with it. But the Left hates self-defense – both individual, and community. The Left hates people rising up to patrol their communities – without the Left. The Left hates people exercising their constitutional rights of self-protection, including their constitutional right to have a gun (and use it in self-defense, when needed). And most of all, the Left hates it that six women sifted the evidence and thought and thought and thought about an issue – and reached a conclusion that the Left didn’t dictate to them.

And so we get the crazy day-is-night, yellow-is-purple comments of Obama, mike and others, in which trying (however amateurishly) to serve and protect one’s community against crime is “starting it”, and in which a misguided, physically aggressive young man is to be “honored” over the one who had aspired to serve and protect – and who had committed the cardinal sin (to the Left) of -not- sitting back and letting the (probable) aggressor smash his head into the concrete.

So lower-case and another’s position is that even though The State failed to prove it’s case, George Zimmerman should have been convicted anyway, because that would have suited the prerogatives of The State.

1. How is that not fascism?
2. They are demanding that an innocent Hispanic man be sent to prison based on their prejudices about Hispanics (violent and macho). Ain’t that racist?

mike, since you’re so good at reading people’s minds and hearts you’ve never met, can you give me the winning lottery numbers as well?

No. My point is convicted or not, he is a murderer and states need to update their laws to clearly state you can’t instigated a fight then shoot the guy.

Again, no proof that Zimmerman ‘instigated’ a fight. He’s not a ‘murderer’ by any definition, and the state did uphold their laws, despite the attempts by the prosecution to deny him a fair trial.

Perhaps, if mike and jeremy would read the facts (like the efforts Zimmerman made for the minority community, the testimony of his (black) neighbors and actually stop spouting talking points, they’d realize they’re trying to execute a man who was saving his own life.

Wait, that would require them to think, nevermind.

Aside, shower-logic this morning Martin caled him an ‘ass-cracker’ and talked about being afraidf of being ‘raped’. If Martin actually had been gay wouldn’t the left be cheering the thwarting of a hate crime?

There isn’t even any evidence that Zimmerman instigated the fight. Funny how lower-case who was screaming for “proof” that Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood just a few days ago now asserts as fact something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

38.It’s painfully obvious that there is scant cultural diversity among the commenters and authors on this site. If you guys were interested in race relations in this country, why don’t you ask some someone who isn’t white instead of patronizing black people and brushing off their experiences with condescending bromides and uncomfortable and frequently offensive acknowledgements about the white washed character of your own political party. History has shown that white people do not always have the right of it when it comes to racism.

Comment by Another_Jeremy — July 16, 2013 @ 2:05 am – July 16, 2013

I’m not white. According to your strange life view that means I have a “right” to an opinion? Oh, I’m Hispanic, so do we have to have some kind of skin off where I compare my skin color to others to determine my “rights”? The thrust of your view is that we should stop being racist by treating people differently according to skin color, that makes you the racist Jeremy. I have never had anyone ask me what my ethnicity was before you on this site kiddo. I think you’ll find conservatives are far more interested in who you are than how you look. Incidentally, the Democrats were the party of the klan and Jim Crow laws. Maybe you can use your rusty critical thinking skills to figure out why that is?

Except an agitated phone call to 911 of a old man stalking a teenage boy. The teenage boy noted at the very least he was wielded out by the stalked.
Then the stalked ends up shooting the unarmed teen.
Clearly Martin would be alive if not for the actions of the murderer .

Except an agitated phone call to 911 of a old man stalking a teenage boy. The teenage boy noted at the very least he was wielded out by the stalked.
Then the stalked ends up shooting the unarmed teen.
Clearly Martin would be alive if not for the actions of the murderer .

Comment by mike — July 16, 2013 @ 9:11 am – July 16, 2013

Now the insane race-baiter mike is screaming that calling 911 makes you a stalker and a murderer.

Is anyone else just laughing at this point at the pathetic Revival Klansman mike screaming through his black hoodie about how they should lynch the whitey Zimmerman, evidence, due process, and jury decision be damned?

mike, does the truth hurt? Because, as expertly pointed out, you have absolutely no problem with characterizing others with facts not in evidence. In fact, you REVEL in it. So why cry when you’re on the receiving end?

Surely, you aren’t the very face of the hypocritical Left, right? I mean, why cry about tactics you engage in all the time? Surely if those tactics bothered you, you wouldn’t engage in them constantly, would you?

Hahahaha! What am I saying? Of COURSE you would, because you, Obama, Holder, and the Left are cut from the same cloth.

Amazing, isn’t it. And we have Corey actually calling Zimmerman a murderer.

Remember after the OJ verdict? My, wasn’t the tone from the monstrously hypocritical Left so very different, then?

I wonder, should we subject the Left to the same hate speech and lies they do to any who oppose them? Maybe we should start calling Holder an unindicted criminal — he WAS found in contempt, was he not?

You can keep on clinging to the notion that Zimmerman was protecting his community from the scourge that is black toddlers and teenagers armed with junk food, but to any sensible human being it was the hostile grown man “patrolling” his neighborhood with a weapon from whom the community needed protection. The boy he was following had done nothing wrong and was (reasonably) afraid of the “creepy” man who was following him. The resultant conflict was solely the result of his false attribution and inability to properly identify a threat. You may embrace an authoritarian society in which anyone who claims to be acting in the name of safety (no matter how reckless and irrational their own actions) gets a free pass on the “personal responsibility” arguments you guys are all too happy to disregard the misery of the poor, but I do not.

You’ve gone out of your way to empathize with the man who killed a child, but have made no efforts to acknowledge the fact that Trayvon Martin was afraid. You’ve mentioned the “creepy ass cracker” (a term of whose origin you seem blithely unaware) comment over and over again, but have yet to mention in any of your comments that Zimmerman had a history of calling the police on people without any real reason. Your bit about Martin’s profiling of Zimmerman by calling him a “cracker” while running for his life reads like bad comedy.

Bet keep comforting yourself with fairy tales about how George “these punks always get away” Zimmerman wasn’t obviously looking for a fight. Keep ignoring the fact that Martin had not done nothing wrong when he was profiled as a criminal by non cop George Zimmerman. And most of all, keep ignoring the fact that being suspected of wrong doing for no other reason than the color of your skin is a reality for many black people in this country.

mike description at #48 – Conveniently leaves out the part where Martin pounded Zimmerman “MMA style” and tried to smash his head into the concrete, making him fear legitimately for his life.

That’s denial, folks. mike tells a certain story to support his pre-set conclusion; and his version, even after being corrected again and again, STILL leaves out the crucial part (of the actual story that happened in the real world).

You may embrace an authoritarian society in which anyone who claims to be acting in the name of safety (no matter how reckless and irrational their own actions) gets a free pass on the “personal responsibility” arguments you guys are all too happy to disregard the misery of the poor, but I do not.

When you have Trayvons running around screaming that these jurors’ children should be murdered, their grandmothers should be raped, and that their houses should be burned to the ground, you see immediately how both the race-baiter mike and Another_Jeremy support, endorse, and will make any excuse for violence, hate, and bigotry when they don’t get their way.

Then, Trayvon Martin should have used his cellphone to call 9-11. You know…like Zimmerman used his cellphone, to call the police non-emergency line.

Martin had a second good option, the option of leaving (avoiding Zimmerman, who had already drawn the attention of police and so WOULD NOT be chasing Martin with aggressive intent to do him physical harm)…and not coming back. (Martin apparently did leave at first, but came back.)

Martin had a third good option, the option of confronting Zimmerman verbally and while keeping a distinct physical distance between them. (A good idea is to keep at least twelve feet, yelling “BACK OFF!” and “DON’T COME NEARER!” if the other person tries to violate the distance.)

Had Martin chosen any of those three options, he would have survived his encounter with Zimmerman. But instead, and apparently (based on such evidence as we have), Martin jumped Zimmerman and tried to beat the life out of him. That was the wrong choice. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong – the word that you just can’t bring yourself to use about Martin, Another_Jeremy.

You can keep on clinging to the notion that Zimmerman was protecting his community from the scourge that is black toddlers

Not my view (or anything I said) at all, Another_Jeremy. In fact, you’re so far off that I don’t even need to reply to the rest of your comment (which is equally far off).

If the NAACP would like to end racial profiling, perhaps they can come up with a plan to end the fact that young Black males, about 3% of the population, are responsible for over 50% of all the crime. That might help.

Florida’s George Zimmerman not-guilty verdict spawned sporadic riots Sunday. The trial was very educational. White people learned they shot Trayvon Martin, Hispanics learned that they were white, and black people learned never to take Skittles to a gunfight.